Recommend
77 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Kingdom Builder» Forums » Reviews

Subject: GamerChris Review - Kingdom Builder rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
mbmbmbmbmb
Kingdom Builder
It's not a freaking gamer's game!


Designer: Donald X. Vaccarino (2011)
Publisher: Queen Games
# of Players: 2-4
Play Time: 45 min
BGG Rank/Rating: #395/6.73
Category: Family Game

This review originally appeared on GamerChris.com

There was definitely a lot of anticipation for Kingdom Builder, mostly because everyone in the boardgaming world wanted to see how Donald X. Vaccarino was going to follow up on his crazy success from Dominion. In the months since it's come out, it's gotten a rather mixed reception from the gaming community, but it seems to me that most of the negativity is due to misplaced expectations rather than from any issue of the game itself. Now that I've played it a number of times myself and had the chance to solidify my thoughts on it, here's my relatively final opinion...

Game Basics (click here for the complete rules)

Like all Queen games, the components in Kingdom Builder are top-notch. And in addition to the high quality of materials in the boards and bits, probably the biggest the hallmark of the game is the sheer variety and replayability built into it by the inclusion of so many modular pieces, many of which aren't actually used in any one particular play.

There are actually 8 rectangular boards in the box, of which only 4 are used in any one play of the game (5, I suppose, if you count the one you flip over and use as a score track). The boards are divided into lots of little hexagonal spaces, which are then grouped together by different terrain types. Every board also includes a unique type of location that appears once or twice on it, and onto which 2 cardboard tokens are placed that may be taken by the first 2 players to play a settlement adjacent to it. These token give players some special ability to place or move settlements on the board in addition to their normal move.


You also get a deck of 10 Kingdom Builder cards, which (being the "title components" of the game) are very important in that they determine the scoring opportunities of each game. Once again, only 3 of these cards are used in any one play, which adds a ridiculous range of combinations. Between the random choosing of boards and Kingdom Builder cards, I think that means there are over 1.2 million possible permutations (but since I'm not totally sure of that number, please feel free to check my math, dear readers)!

You also get a deck of terrain cards and a bunch of little "settlements" (wooden houses) in each of the 4 player colors, which are also quite nifty as well.

Scoring and Kingdom Builder Cards

As I just said, one of the things you do when setting up the game is to randomly select 3 of the 10 Kingdom Builder cards. The only ways to score points in the game is through meeting the requirements of these cards (which is variable each game) and through placing settlements adjacent to Castle spaces printed on the boards.

Even in the base game, there is a nice selection of different scoring possibilities on these cards. Sometimes, you'll score points for something simple like each settlement adjacent to mountains (Miners) or water (Fishermen), but sometimes it can be a little more complicated like connecting Castles or Location spaces to each other using a string of your own settlements (Merchants). What's also pretty neat is that some cards are sort of the opposite of other cards (like the Hermits, which want you to have as many different groups of settlements as you can, and the Citizens, which score for how many settlements you have in your single largest settlement group), which makes it very interesting should they both be included in a particular game.


Game Turn and Placing Settlements

Actually playing the game is very simple. On each turn, you basically just draw a terrain card and then place 3 settlements from your supply into that type of terrain. However, there's one big complication to how you place your settlements, which is sort of the prime directive of the game: when placing new settlements on the board, you must always place adjacent to another one of your settlements if at all possible.

So basically, if you draw a desert terrain card on your first turn, you get to place your first settlement on any desert terrain hex anywhere on the board. But then your second settlement that turn must be adjacent to the first unless there are no empty desert hexes in that same area. And on the next turn, if you draw a grassland card and there is a grassland space adjacent to one of the desert settlements you placed last time, you must place in a space adjacent to it.

In addition to placing your 3 "mandatory" settlements, you can use any special location tiles collected in previous turns to add or move settlements based on whatever power they give you. When adding new settlements even through these tiles, you must still follow the prime directive of placing adjacent to your currently existing settlements.


Game End

You continue taking turns until one player places their last settlement. But the current round continues, making sure that every player has the same number of turns. Each Kingdom Builder card is then assessed for each player, points from connecting to Castles are added, and the player with the most points wins the game!

What I Think...

Okay, obviously, the variability and replayability of Kingdom Builder is pretty awesome. It excites me to think that every time I sit down to the game, I'll face a new and at least slightly different challenge than I ever have before. Especially when compared to something like Through the Desert (which is mechanically a very similar game), this variety is definitely a factor that makes Kingdom Builder a lot more appealing to me.

Balance

On the other hand, the dark side of such variety is the need for balance between the different options. I'm not sure that I've even played with all of the different Kingdom Builder cards yet, so I can't really speak to the relative balance of the points they offer, but I've definitely come across some power inequality with the location tiles.

The Harbor, for instance, is the only way in the game to get settlements onto water hexes. Especially with something like the Merchants or Knights in play, which make you want to build continuous lines on the board, it's incredibly powerful. And more than that, for some odd reason, they only included one Harbor location and 2 tiles for it on the board (rather than the usual 2 locations and 4 tiles). I assume that they knew it was powerful and wanted to limit how many were available, but in reality, what it means is that the two people who get a Harbor have a distinct advantage over other players. It would have been better to have the standard 2 locations or, as I heard mentioned somewhere in the blog/podisphere, have just one location with 4 tiles on it (to prevent one player from getting more than one of them).


And in addition to actual balance issues between the location tiles, even well-balanced tiles will be more or less useful depending on the Kingdom Builder cards in play. And, since the most logical first move for most players is to place next to a location tile they want, being able to pick up the best one for that game is often heavily dependent on the luck of turn order and the terrain card you draw. Once again, it's very easy to have a very inequitable situation from the get-go, which isn't much fun for anyone.

Random Draw

This takes us to the thing that's gotten one particular reviewer's panties all in a wad recently: the random draw of the terrain cards governing most of your settlement placement. This is, of course, the core of the game, so I'm going to take a little time to unpack the implications of this mechanic.

First, the purpose of having a random draw is, I presume, mostly a matter of game weight and length. Clearly, Kingdom Builder is supposed to be a family-/light-weight game, and limiting the choices on each turn to a few options rather than being totally wide open helps to keep it more manageable and prevent analysis paralysis (which is a big danger in a game like this, since sometimes I find myself agonizing over "percect" placement even with all of these restrictions). And since the game pretty consistently finishes up just over 30 minutes for us, I'd say it works pretty well.


Contrary to some opinion, however, this random draw does not remove all real decisions from the game. You may have to make more subtle choices, and it may be more difficult to achieve your goals than if you had free reign, but I don't really think this is a bad thing. Little things like taking into consideration which and how many other terrain types are next to your placement becomes a big deal. And while you may really want a particular location tile, jumping into an expansive block of that terrain type to do so may not be good for you in the long run. There is definitely a learning curve to the game, and there are real skills to learn and employ to make the best of your random card draw each turn.

This, of course, also means that the game is almost totally tactical. You pretty much have to take what you're given each turn and use it to the best of your ability. And while I do miss the chance to develop and explore different strategies in the game, I think that having this be limited is very appropriate for the nature of the game as it's intended to be. But that also doesn't mean that Kingdom Builder is completely devoid of strategy, however. You still have to have at least a rough plan for how you're going to achieve the conditions of the scoring cards, and some actually do require a good deal of planning throughout the game.


Is Kingdom Builder, then, more about skill or luck? It's hard to say, of course, but my gut feeling is that, for most of the game anyway, skill is more important. Having more options on your turn is usually due to the strength of your choices on previous turns. And most every time I've played, I've felt the ability from turn to turn to be able to build on what I had done before and work towards my goals, which wouldn't really be possible if the game were mostly about luck.

However, luck does play a rather huge and perhaps inordinate role in the first two turns of the game. In at least 2 of the games I've played, I drew the same terrain card on both turn 1 and 2, and basically, this just sucks. You usually lose the opportunity to place next to 2 location spaces early on, and even worse, may end up placing settlements next to even more terrain types, which will limit your later moves even more. So while I'm very happy with the luck/skill balance in most of the game, it needs a little something to help it get through the first 2 turns...


The Variant I Won't Play Without

There are a number of variants out there to help deal with some of the luck in Kingdom Builder. Probably the simplest is just to let players have a hand of cards rather than drawing a single card on each turn. And you know what, if that sounds good to you and your group, go for it. However, I don't really think that something that "drastic" (if you consider holding 2 or 3 cards in your hand to be drastic) is really even necessary. A friend of mine (Sceadeau, pictured above on the left, if you really want to know who) came up with a very simple way to mitigate the luck of the first and second turn and help eliminate the dreaded same-terrain draw on the 1st and 2nd turn.

Basically, on the first turn of the game, you draw 2 terrain cards and choose one of them to play for your initial placement. Then, you can choose to either keep the 2nd card and use it on your next turn (giving you a bit more choice to help start the game), or you can discard it and draw as normal from then on (in case you drew two of the same type, or a second type that was right next to your first placement). After the 2nd turn, you play as per the normal rules, and hopefully, with this little extra boost on the first two turns, you'll be in a position to deal with future card draws regardless of what type they are.


The Verdict!
I like Kingdom Builder quite a bit. It's not something that would be my main event for an evening, but it's interesting and dynamic enough that I'd probably pull it out before a number of other filler/"gateway" games. And for actual couples and/or families, it's weight and limited direct conflict makes it a really nice choice.

• Rules: Very simple core rules, with the location tiles bringing in a nice element of variation and complexity.
• Theme: Totally irrelevant. But the game looks good, at least.
• Downtime: Very little, since turns are so simple and choices are constrained.
• Length: 30-45 minutes, which is perfectly appropriate for the weight
• Player Interaction: Almost none in a 2-player game, but the board can get a little tight with some blocking opportunities in a 4-player game.
GamerChris' Rating: 7.5 (on the BGG 10-point scale)



For more reviews, reports, and discussion about modern boardgames, check out my blog at GamerChris.com
41 
 Thumb up
4.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Compulsive Completist
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kingdom builder has such opposing views I don't know if I'll ever buy it. It is a bit hefty in price for a lighter game to begin with, add the wild swings in approval and I feel stuck. I really need to playtest this first or hope that a future expansion "fixes" the game for most naysayers.

Thanks for the great review.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Eugene
Oregon
msg tools
mb
Kingdom Builder » Forums » Reviews
Re: GamerChris Review - Kingdom Builder
kilroy_locke wrote:
It's not a freaking gamer's game!

Well I'll play it. And kick my share of gamer butts.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
mbmbmbmbmb
Hockey Mask wrote:
Kingdom builder has such opposing views I don't know if I'll ever buy it. It is a bit hefty in price for a lighter game to begin with, add the wild swings in approval and I feel stuck. I really need to playtest this first or hope that a future expansion "fixes" the game for most naysayers.

Yeah, but my impression is that most of the negativity has more to do with unfounded expectations rather than any real failing in the game itself. Hence my "It's not a freaking gamer's game!" statement.

Quote:
Thanks for the great review.

Thanks!

garygarison wrote:
kilroy_locke wrote:
It's not a freaking gamer's game!

Well I'll play it. And kick my share of gamer butts.

Yep, 'cause a lot of them will be too busy complaining about how it's all luck and not noticing when you bend the game to your will and slap them silly with it!
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Garry Rice
United States
Perkasie
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I enjoy the game for what it is...and its one my wife will play with me, so it's a winner in that book!

That said, I agree with you about the harbor - it would have been much better to have a stack of 4 ships on one location. In just about every game with ships in it, a player with ships have won. Granted certain rules are more of an issue with ships than others, but regardless, it's a pretty powerful play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nico W.
Belgium
Leuven
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

garry_rice wrote:
That said, I agree with you about the harbor - it would have been much better to have a stack of 4 ships on one location.


I don't think this would be very helpfull. As you can see in the picture above, the harbor is only next to 4 usable hexes (2 desert and 2 canyon hexes) and can thus (and will) be easily blocked by the first 2 players who can get there.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Riley
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
N2xU wrote:
As you can see in the picture above, the harbor is only next to 4 usable hexes (2 desert and 2 canyon hexes) and can thus (and will) be easily blocked by the first 2 players who can get there.


New Rule: You can only have 1 non-water settlement next to a harbor.

Heck, make that a rule for all the special hexes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kathy Sheets
United States
Port Saint Lucie
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice review. I was on the fence for a bit but we do like lighter games so it arrived Tuesday. We've managed one 2p game so far and are quite happy with it. I can see it's going to get a lot of play.

I happened to draw the same terrain type on my first two draws and think I will play with your friend's variant from now on. Thanks for including it in your review and thank your friend for a really nice idea.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Bailey
United States
Salt Lake City
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The first and second play variant listed is a good one. How about this simple twist on it: Instead of starting with two cards, when you draw your second card, if it's the same terrain as your first card, you have the option to discard it and draw another card. If you choose to draw another card, then you must play this card for your second turn--unless it's the same terrain as your first card, then you have the option to discard it and draw again. And so on. This mitigates having two of the same terrain in that first draw. Again, you can only do this on your second turn. On turn three and thereafter, you have to play on the terrain drawn, regardless if it is the same as the terrain card played on the previous turn.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stefaan Henderickx
Belgium
Burcht
Antwerp
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I still do not get why people keep on making variants. It's like saying: "When I play poker, I choose which cards I get, otherwise it's all down to luck." Or "When I play Catan, I choose how much I throw with the dice." In the picture, I see a starting spot for every terrain, that gives you no problem when drawing the same.
Don't fix the game when the player is broken.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Riley
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
stefaan wrote:
"When I play poker, I choose which cards I get, otherwise it's all down to luck."


It's more like "You know, 5 card stud is ok n' all, but 7 would be better." Or, "This Texas Hold'em thing is fine, but I want more variety; let's play Omaha." Same cards, same "game," but different ways to play. It's not an issue of the game being broken, but finding a way to make the game fun for you. Plus, making variants can be fun in itself (which is how we end up with ridiculous poker games like Baseball.)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Garry Rice
United States
Perkasie
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
N2xU wrote:

garry_rice wrote:
That said, I agree with you about the harbor - it would have been much better to have a stack of 4 ships on one location.


I don't think this would be very helpfull. As you can see in the picture above, the harbor is only next to 4 usable hexes (2 desert and 2 canyon hexes) and can thus (and will) be easily blocked by the first 2 players who can get there.


True - hadn't considered that. Perhaps having 2 spots while maintaining that you can only get 1 boat would be better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Bohnenberger
United States
Swarthmore
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I take the seemingly bizarre view that the designer chose not to let players hold a "hand" of cards for a reason. I don't even need to know what the reason is to trust him to make the correct design decision.

In fact, it seems so obvious that players SHOULD have a hand of cards, that I can safely assume he thought of it and tried it that way. And so I can safely assume that playtesting showed that the game is better as written.

I am willing to try Sceadeau's variant, however. Especially if I'm in a game with him!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelo Nikolaou
Ireland
Dublin
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
N2xU wrote:
As you can see in the picture above, the harbor is only next to 4 usable hexes (2 desert and 2 canyon hexes) and can thus (and will) be easily blocked by the first 2 players who can get there.
Um, there are two harbor tokens to begin with, why would a third player even want to go there? Besides the harbor isn't necessary to win, and in some occasions it's not even necessary (eg when you have fishermen)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Moonleaf wrote:
N2xU wrote:
As you can see in the picture above, the harbor is only next to 4 usable hexes (2 desert and 2 canyon hexes) and can thus (and will) be easily blocked by the first 2 players who can get there.
Um, there are two harbor tokens to begin with, why would a third player even want to go there?

You overlooked the quote he was replying to:
Quote:
That said, I agree with you about the harbor - it would have been much better to have a stack of 4 ships on one location.


Quote:
Besides the harbor isn't necessary to win, and in some occasions it's not even necessary (eg when you have fishermen)

Agreed that in general the harbor isn't necessary to win. I just won a game without it an hour ago.

It certainly depends on the goal cards in play.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
mbmbmbmbmb
I said this over on Chris's blog, but the main thing balancing out the harbour's power is that it doesn't let you get an extra settlement on the board, just move one. If you fall behind on extra-settlement powers, the game will end while you still have several unplaced houses, which can be very bad if Lords, Citizens or a few others are around.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
qwertymartin wrote:
I said this over on Chris's blog, but the main thing balancing out the harbour's power is that it doesn't let you get an extra settlement on the board, just move one. If you fall behind on extra-settlement powers, the game will end while you still have several unplaced houses, which can be very bad if Lords, Citizens or a few others are around.


This.

I used to think harbor and paddock were essential high priority "go for them first" locations. I now think the various ones that give you a new house instead of moving a house are often more important and should be the high priority early targets.

(But as always, it does also depend on the specific goals in play...)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark C
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmb
garygarison wrote:
kilroy_locke wrote:
It's not a freaking gamer's game!

Well I'll play it. And kick my share of gamer butts.


Meh, it's the light weight and luck combined with the incredibly thin theme and unoriginal mechanics that makes this game unappealing for me. But besides that, I'll grant you it's a good game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:

I used to think harbor and paddock were essential high priority "go for them first" locations. I now think the various ones that give you a new house instead of moving a house are often more important and should be the high priority early targets.

(But as always, it does also depend on the specific goals in play...)


Yep. If hermits are about, I'm getting me some ponies
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Cale
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth. He knows where the Old Ones broke through of old, and where They shall break through again.
mbmbmbmbmb
This game is definitely best with four players as there is practically no interaction in a two player game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kathy Sheets
United States
Port Saint Lucie
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheEbonyTurtle wrote:
This game is definitely best with four players as there is practically no interaction in a two player game.


I can see that's probably true, but if you don't have that option it's still a fun game at 2p (unless you can't live without player interaction.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
mbmbmbmbmb
TheEbonyTurtle wrote:
This game is definitely best with four players as there is practically no interaction in a two player game.

While I'd agree that you're generally right, you also have to remember that some people actually don't like or want player interaction (based either on personal preference or the circumstance of the game). A lot of couples may actually find a more solitaire 2-player experience to be a positive thing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
kilroy_locke wrote:
TheEbonyTurtle wrote:
This game is definitely best with four players as there is practically no interaction in a two player game.

While I'd agree that you're generally right, you also have to remember that some people actually don't like or want player interaction (based either on personal preference or the circumstance of the game). A lot of couples may actually find a more solitaire 2-player experience to be a positive thing.

I don't find that 2-player Kingdom Builder has "practically no interaction" or is "solitaire"-ish.

Note that some people prefer 2-player games (including ones with much interaction, e.g. Blokus or chess or whatever) for other reasons, e.g. because multiplayer games often have more downtime and kingmaking issues.

(In practice, I don't find downtime or kingmaking to be serious issues in multiplayer KB, luckily! But it is in many games.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt N

Pennsylvania
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheEbonyTurtle wrote:
This game is definitely best with four players as there is practically no interaction in a two player game.


It's a function of what victory cards are out. Knights is a card that can be rather interactive, as is the card that rewards connecting cities. If it's just a matter of clumping stuff by other stuff, then the game would not be very interactive.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Janik-Jones
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Slywester Janik, awarded the Krzyż Walecznych (Polish Cross of Valour), August 1944
mbmbmbmbmb
Great review. First two games last night (third at lunch at work with gaming co-workers). Fun times, definitely will see the table a lot. Great for a wide range of gaming types and perfect for what it is. There is far more strategy in this game than appears on the surface. What's the fuss all about on other threads whistle
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.